Cases3303391/2022

Claimant v MoreCare Services (UK) Ltd

5 November 2025Before Employment Judge BartlettWatfordremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unlawful Deduction from Wagesstruck out

The claim (3303391/2022) was struck out under Rule 38 due to the claimant's unreasonable and scandalous conduct. The claimant manufactured fraudulent payslips using computer software, submitted them to the tribunal following a Rule 21 judgment to mislead the tribunal and obtain a financial gain, and made false statements in his witness statement about their preparation. The tribunal found his credibility was irretrievably destroyed and a fair trial could not take place on this claim.

Facts

The claimant brought two claims against the respondent (3303391/2022 for unlawful deduction of wages and 3303424/2022). After a Rule 21 judgment was issued in the claimant's favour for over £35,000 in the first claim (as the respondent had not initially responded), the respondent applied to reconsider and also applied to strike out on grounds of unreasonable conduct. The respondent alleged the claimant had manufactured fraudulent payslips and submitted witness statements without proper authority. The claimant had created payslips using online software, falsely stated his accountant had prepared them, and submitted them to obtain a financial award when he knew the respondent was not engaged in proceedings.

Decision

The tribunal struck out claim 3303391/2022 (unlawful deduction of wages) in its entirety under Rule 38. The judge found the claimant's conduct in manufacturing fraudulent payslips, submitting them to mislead the tribunal, and lying about their preparation was unreasonable and scandalous. This conduct irretrievably destroyed the claimant's credibility making a fair trial impossible. However, the tribunal did not strike out claim 3303424/2022, finding it disproportionate as that claim was filed separately and the misconduct occurred before the claims were joined.

Practical note

Manufacturing fraudulent documentary evidence (here, fake payslips) to support a claim and mislead the tribunal into awarding damages will result in strike-out, as such conduct irretrievably destroys a party's credibility and prevents a fair trial.

Legal authorities cited

De Keyser Ltd v Wilson 2001 IRLR 324Abegaze v Shrewsbury College of Arts & Technology [2009] EWCA Civ 96Bolch v Chipman 2004 IRLR 140

Statutes

Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 Rule 38Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 Rule 21

Case details

Case number
3303391/2022
Decision date
5 November 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Claimant representation

Represented
No